Friday, 29 November 2013

A new website, containing articles, videos and personal
stories has been launched today to help Christians experiencing same-sex
attraction.

Living Out is a
brilliant initiative by men in pastoral ministry who admit to feelings of same
sex attraction but who also see the Bible’s
prohibitions on same-sex relationships as non-negotiable.

The core of the new group, recently interviewed by Christianity
magazine, are Sam Alberry, a church leader in Maidenhead, Sean Doherty, a tutor
at St Mellitus College and Ed Shaw, who helps to lead Emmanuel Church in
Bristol.

Their testimonies are clear, powerful, hugely encouraging
and most welcome at a time when many young evangelicals are genuinely
confused about the issue.

Doherty, who has experienced some degree of shift in his
sexual feelings and is now married, explains how his own church experience
helped him:

‘Church was a place of nurture and unconditional
acceptance, but at the same time the teaching was clear that I shouldn’t act on
those sexual desires. In an environment where young people were being
encouraged to experiment, I was really grateful that I had been kept from acting
on my feelings.’

He is reluctant to describe himself as gay and instead
adopts terminology adopted by blogger Peter
Ould who has a similar testimony:

‘I don’t speak of myself as an “ex-gay” person. I prefer
the term “post-gay”. You choose to move away from the label of “gay”
altogether, which has come to be associated with a certain lifestyle. I’ve
clearly experienced some change in my feelings so that I am attracted to my
wife. But it’s definitely not a 180-degree reorientation. All of us will
continue to have desires and feelings which aren’t right, until Jesus returns.’

Alberry and Shaw share Doherty’s perspective, but accept
that they will remain celibate if their orientation does not change.

Alberry previously posted an article titled ‘How
can the Gospel be good news to gays?’ on the Gospel Coalition website,
where he takes a firm biblical stance on the issue but argues strongly and
compassionately that people with homosexual orientation need more grace and not
less.

Last year Vaughan Roberts, a leading conservative
evangelical, spoke
for the first time of his own struggle with same-sex attraction in an
interview with Evangelicals Now. His testimony is clear,
biblical, passionate and pastoral and well worthy of study.

Alberry, Doherty and Shaw's experience, and those of Ould
and Roberts, underline the fact that there is a
difference between experiencing same sex attraction and choosing to
participate in homosexual erotic behaviour.

The Bible is very clear that all sexual relations outside
marriage (a life-long exclusive monogamous heterosexual public covenant
relationship) are morally wrong (Leviticus 18:6-23, 20:10-21; Romans 1:26, 27;
1 Corinthians 6:9,10; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 1 Timothy 1:9,10;
Revelation 22:15). This includes fornication, adultery, same-sex relations and
all other sorts of sex imaginable, even if you are deeply in love with
the other person.

Claiming that we are just ‘being true to our feelings’ in this area is just as
wrong as claiming that our feelings justify any other form of sin. As Jeremiah
put it ‘the heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure’ (17:9) It is
God’s Word that must guide us, not our feelings.

So people who become Christians, who recognize that they experience same-sex feelings
or have a homosexual orientation and/or identity, are in the same category as
anyone who has opposite-sex feelings but is unmarried,
divorced, widowed or in a marriage relationship where, for physical or
psychosexual reasons, sex is not possible.

For those who recognize themselves to be exclusively of homosexual orientation
this may well mean that the only course open to them is staying single.
Sometimes sexual orientation may change over time, but often it doesn’t.

Jesus of course was unmarried and never had sex yet we know that he ‘was
tempted in all ways as we are – yet was without sin’. This must surely have
included the temptation to sexual sin.

Is it possible to live a full life without having sex? Well Jesus himself did
just that. And he is able to help any Christian to do the same. Marriage is a
great calling but so is singleness, and sex is neither compulsory, nor
necessary, in order to live a fulfilled and fruitful life. Jesus also said that
there would be no marriage (and therefore sex) in heaven.

Sex is a wonderful gift but like any gift it is not granted to all.

This is where God's grace becomes evident. God never allows us to face a temptation that he does not give us the power to resist. Nor does he ever give us a command that he does not also grant the power to obey. And for those who, for any reason, can’t have sex, he grants other good gifts to enjoy.

The powerful testimonies on this new website demonstrate the goodness of God, the wisdom of his pattern for our lives and also the fact that he grants his grace and power to enable us to live in ways which are both fulfilling and also pleasing to him.

For a list of helpful resources for those seeking an
evangelical Christian perspective on homosexuality see my earlier
blog.

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

A debate at University College London on Monday night
allowed the issue of assisted suicide to be addressed.

UCL’s Cruciform Building was the impressive setting for the motion, ‘This House would legalise Assisted Dying’, I was in the opposition
team with Lord Carlile, Baroness Finlay and Robert Preston – leading lights in
the think tank Living and
Dying Well.

We were given seven minutes each. Here is my talk which
focused on the issue of the ‘slippery slope’. A full report of the debate is available on the CNK website.

The four
main groups resisting the legalisation of assisted dying in this country –
doctors, disabled people, faith groups and parliamentarians – do so primarily
because they are anxious about the consequences of licensing of doctors to
dispense lethal drugs.

Their
concerns are both about how such a system could be regulated and also about the
pressure legalization would place on vulnerable people to end their lives for
fear of being a financial or emotional burden on others.

This is
heightened by the evidence of incremental extension or mission creep in other
jurisdictions.

In the Netherlands which legalised assisted
suicide and euthanasia in 2002 there has been an increase of 10 to 20% of
euthanasia cases per year since 2006 from 1,923 to 4,188. The 2012 figures
included 42 with early dementia and 13 with psychiatric conditions.

In addition
in 2001 about 5.6% of all deaths in the Netherlands were related to
deep-continuous sedation. This rose to 8.2% in 2005 and
12.3% in 2010. A significant proportion of these deaths involve doctors deeply
sedating patients and then withholding fluids with the explicit intention that
they will die.

Children as
young as twelve can already have euthanasia and a 2005 paper in the New England Medical
Journal reported on 22 babies with spina bifida and/or hydrocephalus who were
killed by lethal injection in the Netherlands over a seven year period. It
estimated that there actually 15 to 20 newborns being killed
in this way per year - despite this still being illegal. The culture and public
conscience have changed.

In Belgium, which legalised euthanasia in
2002, there has been a 500% increase in euthanasia deaths over ten years between
2003 and 2012. High profile cases include Mark and Eddy Verbessem, the 45-year-old deaf
identical twins, who were euthanised by the Belgian state, after their eyesight
began to fail; then there is Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in
front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. His
mother said she hated girls, found her child 'so ugly' at birth and did not
mourn his death. And then there is Ann G, who had anorexia and who opted to
have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was
supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition.

Organ
donation euthanasia is already practised in Belgium and the Belgian Senate is
tomorrow discussing plans to extend the programme to minors and
people with dementia (they have since recommended this). Already in parts of Belgium one in three cases of
euthanasia is involuntary and half go unreported. And there has been not one
prosecution for abuses in the last ten years – perhaps because the one of the
lead euthanasia practitioners – Distelmans – chairs the very committee that is
meant to regulate his activity.

Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal,
first released assisted suicide statistics in 2009, laying bare a 700% rise in
cases (from 43 to 297) from 1998 to 2009. Amongst those travelling from abroad
to end their lives at the notorious Dignitas facility have been many people who
could not by any stretch be described as terminally ill – and included cases
of people
who could have lived for decades ending their lives - with arthritis,
blindness, spinal injury, diabetes, mental illness - or people who were
essentially well but could not bear to live without their spouses.

Dignitas
has attracted much criticism in recent years over accounts of discarded
cremation urns dumped in Lake Zurich, reports of body bags in residential
lifts, suicides being carried out in car parks, the selling of the personal
effects of deceased victims and profiteering with fees approaching £8,000 per
death.

In the US state of Oregon there has been a
350% increase assisted in suicide deaths since legalisation. I’ll leave it to my colleagues to expand on the details but notable are two people with cancer – Randy
Stroup and Barbara Wagner – who were told that the Oregon Health Authority
would not pay for their chemotherapy but would happily pay for their assisted
suicide – which was of course much cheaper. Is this really the kind of
temptation that we wish to put before NHS managers in Britain? Is it any wonder
that over 120 attempts to change the law through US state parliaments have
failed?

The problem
is that any law allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia will carry within it
the seeds of its own extension.

And whilst
Lord Falconer may claim to have limited objectives - on his coat tails are a
host of other UK groups with more radical agendas – FATE, SOARS, the BHA, NSS
and EXIT International.

They will
not be satisfied with the so-called modest changes he seeks but they are using
exactly the same arguments to advance their case – ‘compassion’ and ‘choice’

They
are able to use exactly the same arguments because Lord Falconer’s position is
at heart both illogical and discriminatory.

If adults can have it why can’t
children who are judged to be Gillick competent?

If competent people can have it
what about those with dementia who it is argued would have wanted it?

If people who are terminally
ill why not the chronically ill or disabled who are suffering unbearably?

If it's for those with physical
suffering why not those with mental suffering?

Or as Exit
international asks – why not the elderly bereaved and the troubled teen?

There will
inevitably be pressure to extend the boundaries which may well not survive
legal challenge once the so-called ‘right’ is available for some.

We will
hear – it is only for this group or only for that group - but I tell you – it
is only the beginning

Any law allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia in any
circumstances at all will be subject to extension - or abuse

And that it is the other problem –changing the law would
give doctors a degree of power over life and death that some will inevitably
abuse.

It will be doctors who see the patients, fill out the forms,
dispense the lethal drugs. Some of them will push the boundaries. Some will
falsify certification. There may be some who, like Harold Shipman, will develop
a taste for killing and they will be very difficult to detect.

But many will simply be too busy, too pressured and facing
too many demands to make the kind of cool comprehensive objective assessments
that this kind of law requires. And very few of them will really know the patients or their families.

We have seen this already with abortion. We began with a
very strict law which allowed it only in limited circumstances. Now there are
200,000 cases a year. Most of them fall outside the boundaries of the law. There is illegal pre-signing of forms, abortions for sex selection, abortions on
demand for spurious mental health reasons. And only one conviction for illegal
abortion in 45 years.

Society is reluctant to touch and question doctors. The
police are reluctant to investigate. The DPP hesitates to prosecute. The courts
are unwilling to convict. Parliament turns a blind eye. It is simply not safe
to give doctors this sort of power because some will abuse it as they have in
other countries and it will be very difficult to stop them.

It’s far better not to go there at all.

The best
system available is that which we have currently – a law carrying a blanket
prohibition on both assisted suicide and euthanasia but with discretion given
to both prosecutors and judges to temper justice with mercy in hard cases – the
current law has both a stern face and a kind heart.

In other words the penalties that it holds in reserve act
as a powerful deterrent to exploitation and abuse of vulnerable people

And it works – there are very few cases observed (just 15-20
per year make the trip to Switzerland) but also very few prosecutions.

Saturday, 23 November 2013

Please sign this petition to stop child euthanasia in Europe. It takes only a minute to do.

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500%
increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported;
euthanasia for blindness, anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ
transplant euthanasia; plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with
dementia.

One commentator has said that
Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Belgium's law, which
came into effect in 2002, permits euthanasia for those in a ‘medically hopeless’
situation due to a serious and incurable condition caused by injury or illness,
with physical and/or psychological suffering which is constant and unbearable,
and cannot be mitigated.

But it is clear that in practice the boundaries are continually migrating and the nation's moral conscience is shifting year on year. Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

Assisted suicide is treated the same as euthanasia
when reported, despite its position in law being unclear.

Here is a series of articles, both on this blog and
elsewhere, which chart the steps in Belgium’s meteoric rise to become euthanasia
capital of the world. Much of this material has not been covered by the British
media in spite of the fact that Belgium is one of our very closest European
neighbours.

With the Falconer and MacDonald bills currently before
the House of Lords and Scottish Parliament respectively Britain needs to take
sober warning from events across the English Channel.

Thursday, 21 November 2013

Alex Schadenberg is
chair of Euthanasia Prevention Coalition International. The following article
is reproduced with permission from his
blog.

Euthanasie Stop in
Belgium is
reporting that the Belgian Senate will vote on the bill to extend
euthanasia to children with disabilities on 26 November. Earlier reports
suggested that the bill might be delayed until after the next election.
Insiders recently learned of a political trade-off with the Flanders N-VA party
which has enabled the Socialist party to bring this bill to a vote immediately.

The Belgian Socialist government is adamant that the euthanasia law needs to
extend to minors and people with dementia even though there is significant
examples of how the current law is being abused and
the bracket
creep of acceptable reasons for euthanasia continues to grow. The
current practice of euthanasia in Belgium appears to have become an easy
way to cover-up medical errors.

SomeBelgian
experts are supporting the extension of euthanasia to children with
disabilities because they say that it is being done already. The same medical
experts suggest that the extension of euthanasia will result in an increase of
10 to 100 euthanasia deaths each year.

Dr Wim Distelmans, who is the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium has also
been the chairman of the Belgian
euthanasia commission for more than 10 years, and the commission has
been stacked with supporters of the euthanasia lobby.

All of this is occurring after the recent launch
of EPC - Europe, a coalition of groups and individuals from across Europe
who are working together to halt the growing threat of state-sanctioned
euthanasia.

Wesley J Smith (pictured), is a senior fellow at the
Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant for the
Patients’ Rights Council. He also acts as a consultant for the Centre of
Bioethics and Culture (CBC). This article is reproduced with permission from their
website.

If you want to see what happens when a society
enthusiastically swallows the euthanasia poison, look at Belgium. Perhaps
influenced by its neighbour the Netherlands —which pioneered
euthanasia permissiveness—
Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002. The country has since leaped head-first
off a vertical moral cliff.

As usual, when the law was being debated, supporters
described it as being strictly limited to those at the end of life for whom
nothing else but killing would adequately alleviate suffering. That is
definitelynothow things have worked out.

The international media usually ignore euthanasia and assisted
suicide abuses. But even the complacent Fourth Estate couldn’t ignore the joint
euthanasia deaths of disabled Belgian identical twins named Marc and Eddy
Verbessem.

Neither of the brothers had contracted a terminal illness.
Nor were they in physical pain. Rather, having been born deaf, and at age 45,
both were progressively losing their eyesight. As theTelegraphreported,
“The pair told doctors that they were unable to bear the thought of being
unable to see each other again.” When their own doctor wouldn’t kill them, they
found their executioner in one Dr David Dufour, who calmly and coollytolda television newscast:

‘They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well
and a rich conversation. Then they separation from their parents and [each]
brother was very serene and beautiful. At the last there was a little wave of
their hands and then they were gone.’

In a morally sane society, Dufour would lose his license to
practice medicine and be tried for homicide. But Belgium apparently no longer
fits that description.

Perhaps the Verbessem lethal injections should not surprise us. In
the last few years, euthanasia consciousness has bored deeply into Belgian
societal bone marrow.

Joint Euthanasia Deaths of Elderly Couples

At least two elderly couples who didn’t want to live apart
have also been reported. The first was in 2011 — and apparently the local
community knew about the plan and approved. They even made their final
arrangements at the local mortuary before being killed. The couple’s demise was
celebrated by a Belgian bioethicist who said: “It is an important signal to
break a taboo,” adding, “This is a beautiful example that allows us to provide
a dignified death to this couple, thanks to euthanasia.” Most societies see
joint suicides by elderly couples as tragic. In Belgium, apparently, they are
‘beautiful.’

Euthanasia after Sexual Exploitation by Psychiatrist

Bioedgerecently posted a story, taken from
Belgian news reports, about the euthanasia of “Ann G.” Ann was a suicidal
anorexia patient who publicly accused her previous psychiatrist of persuading
her into sexual relations. When the psychiatrist — who admitted the charge —
was not severely disciplined, Ann went to a second psychiatrist for euthanasia.
She died at age 44.

Euthanasia for a Botched Sex Change

Nathan Verhelst underwent a sex change surgery from woman
to man, and then was euthanized because of despair over the result. From theDaily Mailstory:

‘A Belgian transsexual has chosen to die by
euthanasia after a botched sex change operation to complete his transformation
into a man left him a “monster”. Nathan Verhelst, 44, died yesterday afternoon
after being allowed have his life ended on the grounds of "unbearable
psychological suffering" . . . In the hours before his death he told
Belgium’s Het Laatse Nieuws: "I was ready to celebrate my new birth. But
when I looked in the mirror, I was disgusted with myself."’

So, Dufour — the same doctor who killed the disabled twins —
killed him! Words rarely fail me. But they do here.

Euthanasia and Organ Harvesting of the Disabled

The joining of voluntary euthanasia and organ harvesting
in Belgium first came to light in a 2008. The doctors who removed the woman’s
organs after her death published a letter in the medical journal,Transplantation, reporting that a totally paralyzed woman
first asked for euthanasia — permission granted — and then to donate her organs
after her heart stopped.

Since this first known case, other euthanasia killings
followed by organ harvesting have been reported. In 2009,Transplantation Proceedings published an article entitled,
“Organ Procurement After Euthanasia: Belgian Experience,” in which doctors
described euthanasia accompanied by organ harvests from disabled patients in
clinical detail.

Euthanasia and organ donation has now expanded to include
at least one patient with a severemental illness.
As reported in “Initial Experience with Transplantation of Lungs,” published in
2011Applied Cardiopulmonary Pathophysiology(PDF),
four patients (three disabled and one mentally ill) were euthanized and their
lungs harvested.

By joining euthanasia with organ donation, Belgium crossed
a very dangerous bridge by giving society autilitarian stake in euthanasia. But the acceptance of joint
killing and harvesting also sends the cruel message to disabled, or mentally
ill people:“Your deaths have
greater value than your lives.”In
such a milieu, self-justifying bromides about “choice” and the “voluntary”
nature “of the process” become mere rationalization.

What’s next for Belgium?Euthanasia for
children!—currently being
debatedin the
Parliament and expected to become law. But why be surprised? Once killing is
accepted as an answer to human difficulty and suffering,the power of sheer logicdictates
that there is no bottom.

Wednesday, 20 November 2013

It is widely acknowledged
that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten
years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness,
anorexia and botched sex change operations; organ transplant euthanasia; plans
to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia.One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

But why Belgium? One
of the reasons seems to be because of the utter failure of regulation of the practice
which is exacerbated by serious conflicts of interests. One of the leading
euthanasia doctors actually chairs the regulatory committee that is mean to
supervise him! Other members of his ‘Commission’ are pro-euthanasia activists.

Dr Tom Mortier
(pictured), Leuven University College, and Dr Georges Casteur, General Medical
Practitioner, Ostend, lift the lid on Belgium’s euthanasia governance fiasco. Dr
Tom Mortier is also a member of the Belgian group - Euthanasie
Stop.Parts of this
article were previously published by the Belgian
Medical Newspaper

In October 2013, the leading euthanasia doctor in Belgium, Wim Distelmans,
received international media attention for the second time. Under his ‘medical’
guidance, he killed 44-year-old Nathan Verhelst, who was born as Nancy.
Distelmans, who is an oncologist, said on the Belgian radio that his patient
met ‘all’ the conditions of the euthanasia law. Furthermore, Distelmans said
that unbearable suffering under the Belgian euthanasia law can be both physical
and psychological.

In the case of Nathan Verhelst, euthanasia was done for reasons of
psychological suffering. Distelmans said that it is not exceptional for
mentally ill patients to be euthanized. When he was asked about the terms of
the legislation, Distelmans replied laconically that a second opinion should be
sought from two other doctors, and when the patient is not terminally ill, one
doctor must be a psychiatrist. Furthermore, a month must pass between the
written request for euthanasia and the lethal injection.

However, according to the Belgian euthanasia law, the opinions of the two other
doctors are not binding; and the doctor who does the euthanasia can ignore a
negative opinion and still give a patient the lethal injection. Basically, in
Belgium, a person only needs to find a euthanasia doctor who is willing to
kill! The euthanasia doctor only has to have two written reports in the medical
record approving euthanasia of the patient and the doctor can ignore any
negative reports.

It is striking to see that Distelmans, as the leading euthanasia doctor in
Belgium, has been given so much freedom. Distelmans has become a Belgian media
icon who continually propagates his ideology through various newspapers and
magazines. His institutional background also has enabled him to be honoured as
the ‘hero of the Belgian euthanasia law’. He has been the chairman of the Belgian
Euthanasia Control and Evaluation Commission (Belgian Commission) for more than
ten years.

Furthermore, he has started his own ideological association (Leif) that is
giving awards to other members of the Belgian Commission. For instance, the
retired Senator Jacinta De Roeck, a pro-euthanasia activist, was recently
honoured by Distelmans with a ‘lifetime achievement award’, which is ironic as
already more than 8000 euthanasia cases have been registered in Belgium since
2002.

As the chairman of the Belgian Commission, Distelmans is ‘controlling’ his
euthanasia law, while continuing to administer lethal injections after
‘consulting’ with his close colleagues. Therefore, we strongly question whether
independent consultations, a legal requirement of the law, are actually
occurring during these so-called medical consultations. Is it not a conflict of
interest when Distelmans declares euthanasia cases performed by himself to the
Belgian Commission when he is also the chairman and when the members of the Belgian
Commission include pro-euthanasia activists like Jacinta De Roeck and
Jacqueline Herremans?

Furthermore, there will never be a two-thirds majority to send a case to a
judge because the members of the Belgian Commission and its chairman are in a
conflict of interest!

It appears that Distelmans has become both the judge and the executioner.

If the euthanasia law in Belgium has taught us anything, it is that in Belgium
the euthanasia doctors have been given all of the power in contrast to the
patients who are given lethal injections!

Twenty
four hours prior to the unveiling of the Scottish bill, the
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe was formally
launched in the European Parliament. The coalition was first convened
at the beginning of 2013, with representatives from the UK, France, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain and Italy. Last week's programme
included a press conference hosted by Finnish MEP Sari Essayah and a public
debate at the Goethe Institute. Please visit the EPC Europe website, and follow the
coalition on Twitter (@EPCEurope)
and Facebook (/EPCEurope).

A euthanasia
bill for France promised for the end of this year by
President Hollande has yet to materialise, having been opposed by the
national medical ethics advisory board and rejected in public polling in
favour of improved palliative care

We welcomed the decision
by all three judges in the Appeal Court comprehensively and
completely to reject the Nicklinson and Lamb cases, but were concerned at the
2-1 decision in the 'Martin' case to seek further clarification of the DPP
guidelines for so-called 'class two' cases relating to assisted suicide,
requiring the involvement of a health professional. The DPP (Keir Starmer, who
has since been succeeded by Alison Saunders) immediately announced
that he would appeal to the Supreme Court, and leave to appeal was also
granted to Paul Lamb and the Nicklinson family.

Liverpool Care Pathway

Following the report, published in July, of Lady Neuberger's
review of the LCP - which concluded that the LCP should be phased out 'over the
next 6 to 12 months' and replaced by an individual end of life care plan,
'backed up by good practice guidance specific to disease groups' - a Leadership
Alliance for the Care of Dying People(LACDP) was set up under the
chairmanship of Dr Bee Wee, National Clinical Director for End of Life Care at
NHS England. The Leadership Alliance has begun a public
consultation to inform its response to the review, which runs
until 6 January 2014.

As reported
by the BBC today, Journalist, broadcaster and gay rights activist Ray
Gosling has died in hospital in Nottingham.

My sympathy is with Gosling’s family.

However his death revives
memories of the time when the BBC’s flagrant promotion of assisted suicide and
euthanasia arguably reached its greatest depths.

When the former television journalist confessed
on BBC’s Inside Out programme on 15 February 2010 that he had
taken a pillow and smothered a gay lover with AIDS who was in ‘terrible,
terrible pain’ it very quickly became an international news story.

But it later transpired, after a police investigation involving 32 officers,
lasting six months and taking 1,800 hours at a cost of over £45,000 in
taxpayers money, that Goslings’ ‘confession’ was simply made up. He did not
kill his lover and in fact was not even in the country at the time he died. Furthermore
the man did not die in pain.

Gosling was given a 90-day suspended prison sentence at
Nottingham Magistrates' Court after pleading guilty to wasting police time. The
judge in passing sentence branded him as ‘a sheer liar and fantasist’ guilty of
‘creating and maintaining this cruel fabrication’.

It was very clear at the time the story broke that the BBC intended it to have
maximum impact.

The Care Not Killing
Alliance (CNK) started getting media calls hours before the programme was
originally broadcast regarding a ‘new euthanasia story’ involving a ‘prominent
BBC employee’ but we were not allowed to know any of the details. Meanwhile
every regional and national BBC news outlet was lining up interviews for the
ensuing 24 hours.

We later learnt that Gosling had made his original confession to BBC colleagues
four months earlier over a ‘beery lunch’. And the programme itself was filmed
some months before it was shown and eventually screened just one week before
the Director of Public Prosecutions published his prosecution policy for cases
of assisted suicide.

Why did the BBC not inform the police during this time or
more carefully investigate what was effectively a confession of murder? How
many BBC employees actually knew about it? Was this actually a cynical attempt
to influence public and judicial opinion at a critical point in time?

These questions were never satisfactorily answered.

In the days that followed the screening, as well as giving a spate of national
and regional broadcasts in the UK (including Five Live and BBC breakfast), I
was interviewed by a host of international outlets covering the story –
including Italian and Spanish newspaper journalists, Russian, Bolivian,
Brazilian and Indian television and the BBC world service. The international
interest was huge.

The very same week, both the Daily
Mail and Daily
Telegraph carried the story of Lord
Carlile, CNK Chairman, writing to the BBC Director General to allege media
bias and to accuse the corporation of adopting an ‘incredibly zealous’
‘campaigning stance’ on assisted suicide.

The BBC has a long history of acting
as a cheerleader for euthanasia and assisted suicide, but with the Gosling
affair it plumbed its greatest depths.

The corporation cynically planned months ahead to release a
story that was total untrue at a time and in a manner guaranteed to maximise
its international impact and to influence public policy.

Not only did it fail in its duty to provide fair and impartial broadcasting. It
also failed to report a criminal act to the police, opting instead for the
sensational proliferation of partisan propaganda and, in this case, downright
lies.

Saturday, 16 November 2013

'If I profess
with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God
except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that
moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be
professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is
proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and
disgrace if he flinches at that point.’

This famous quote
has been attributed to Martin Luther, by Christian commentators as illustrious
as Francis Schaeffer but, as argued convincingly by Carl
Wieland, it actually comes from a 19th Century novel
referring to Luther by Elizabeth Rundle Charles,called The
Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family (Thomas Nelson, 1864).

However, according
to Wieland, Luther did actually say something very similar. He said that if
people were publicly open about every other aspect of their Christian faith,
but chose not to admit their belief on some single point of doctrine (for fear
of what might happen to them if their conviction on that one point became
known) they were effectively denying Christ, period.

As Christians we are
fighting in a spiritual battle, but Martin Luther’s point is that not all God's
truth is equally under attack at any one time. In any culture and generation
there are certain truths which are more under attack than others.

As Christians in
21st century Britain we need to be aware of which Christian truth is most under
attack, and ensure that we are faithful in standing for that truth.

There are some
Christian causes, which in Britain today are politically correct. If you
campaign, for example, to end child poverty, to care for trees in the Amazon
rainforest, to fight cancer, to clamp down on loan sharks, or to curb human
trafficking you will find yourself in a large like-minded company of both
believers and unbelievers.

This does not mean
that these are not important causes for which Christian should fight. They are.
But my point is that few if any will publicly oppose you for making a stand on
them. Especially in the church, you will find many allies who will stand
alongside you.

It’s terribly
important that Christians and churches, particularly at a time of economic
recession, are moving into food bank provision, debt counselling and street
pastoring. The needs are great and we should be involved.

But if we restrict
ourselves to those areas of Christian service that our society applauds, then
we are actually being selective in our discipleship. Luther would even say we
are denying Christ.

Most unbelievers are
very accepting of Christians who support popular causes and it is tempting to
imagine that if we are being good and faithful Christians everyone will like
us, but Jesus actually said exactly the opposite (Luke 6:22).

The Bible reminds us
that everyone who genuinely seeks to live a godly life in Christ will be
persecuted in one way or another (John 16:1-4; Matthew 24:9-14; Mark 13:9-13;
Luke 21:12-17; 2 Timothy 3:12). It was the false prophets, Jesus said, whom
everyone spoke well of (Luke 6:26). We must ensure that our only offence
is that of the Gospel but often in the Christian walk opposition is a sign that
we are doing a good job rather than a bad job (Matthew 5:10-12).

Many people hated
Jesus simply because he spoke truth that people did not want to hear – that is
precisely why he was crucified. Likewise when we speak the same truth some
people will hate us too (John 7:7).

Persecution began
for the early church when Peter, John and Stephen opened their mouths and
started to speak. We must of course speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15),
but how often do we use 'sensitivity' simply as an excuse for cowardice, when
our real underlying motive is actually to avoid being persecuted for the cross
of Christ? (Galatians 6:12).

The high profile
cases involving Christians getting into trouble with the law or governing
authorities, with which we are all familiar, tend to involve a limited number
of issues. Homosexuality is a particularly common theme – whether it is a
couple running a bed and breakfast who wish to ensure their clientele sharing a
double room are married, or street preachers addressing moral issues, or an
Oxford student making casual remarks about a policeman’s horse.

When it comes to
Christian doctors being hauled up before their NHS trusts, or being complained
about to the General Medical Council, or being the subject of court
proceedings, it is similarly a small number of issues that tend to feature.

If a Christian
doctor wishes to opt out of abortion or gay adoption, or expresses views about
these issues, or attempts to share the Gospel with a patient or colleague there
are risks of losing one’s reputation, job or even licence to practise.

If you publicly
express biblical views on subjects like abortion, euthanasia or sex you can
become very unpopular indeed. Last year, in response to direct questioning on
twitter, I expressed in simple terms what I regard to be an orthodox Christian
view of sex. I said ‘All people are sinners (Romans 3:23) and also all sex
outside marriage is morally wrong’ and ‘Sex between two people of the same sex
- male or female - is always wrong’.

My responses were
then retweeted
by an atheist doctor (who was also gay!) to several thousand of his
followers and I was buried for several hours under a barrage of the most
unpleasant abuse you can possibly imagine.

I was recently out
for a meal with a friend, with whom I have a great deal in common, who told me
that he disagreed with me about three things.

While I was inwardly shaking my head with astonishment at ‘only three’ (!) my
friend informed me that the three things in question were abortion, assisted
suicide and homosexual practice.

My own view, as you
might guess, is that abortion, assisted suicide and homosexual practice are not
good ideas.

But the friend in question, an evangelical Christian and Bible college lecturer,
felt strongly that there was a place for Christian involvement in all three.
These views are not unusual.

The Evangelical
Alliance surveyed 17,000 ‘evangelicals’, mainly at conferences like New Wine
and Spring Harvest, in 2010 and published the results in January 2011 (See here and here).

Amongst the questions were one on each of abortion, assisted suicide and
homosexuality. A wide range of views were expressed.

63% of British evangelicals did not
agree that abortion can never be justified

40% did not agree that assisted suicide
is always wrong

27% did not agree that homosexual
actions are always wrong

Remember that these
are conference-going evangelicals and probably represent therefore a more
committed section of the evangelical population.

Richard Dawkins'
Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) found in a poll
published last year that of those who called themselves ‘Christians’:

62% favoured a woman's right to have an
abortion within the legal time limit

46% did not disapprove of sexual
relations between two adults of the same sex

23% believed that sex between a man and
a woman was only acceptable within marriage

74% believed that religion should not
influence public policy

Why is it that so
many Christians now have views on these issues that would have been considered
anathema just a generation ago?

First, and perhaps
obviously, the prevailing culture has shifted hugely on these questions. The so-called
mountains of culture – parliament, universities, institutions, law, science,
media, arts, entertainment – are increasingly dominated by people with an
atheist world view. This new ‘liberal elite’ believes that God doesn’t exist,
that death is the end and that morality is relative to each individual. But in
practice most adopt the ethics of secular humanism. Undoubtedly this cultural
change has affected the church.

Second, as I have
already alluded to, taking a traditional view on these issues now carries a
cost that it did not have a generation ago. In 2012, Christians in Parliament,
an official All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG), chaired by Gary Streeter MP,
launched an inquiry called ‘Clearing
the Ground’, which was tasked with considering the question: ‘Are
Christians marginalised in the UK?’ Its main conclusion was that ‘Christians in
the UK face problems in living out their faith and these problems have been
mostly caused and exacerbated by social, cultural and legal changes over the
past decade.’ There is loss of reputation, job and income to consider with
certain Christian beliefs and behaviours.

Third, some
Christian leaders with large followings, have changed their position on these
issues. The Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones,
and Baptist minister Steve
Chalke are two examples of prominent Christian leaders who have come
out this year in support of the church affirming monogamous gay (sexual)
partnerships. There is intense speculation that the Church of England’s Pilling
report is about to be published recommending the same thing.

Fourth, there has been a huge decline in Bible reading and study generally and
in Bible teaching specifically. In particular there is very little teaching in
our churches about ethical issues. This year, I was asked for the very first
time in 20 years of ministry with CMF, to lead a seminar on abortion at a
leading London evangelical church. We were told that it was being widely advertised
through home groups and through the over 30 full time workers in a congregation
of over 1,000. Twelve people turned up. I learnt later that the poor attendance
was due to the fact that the leadership had not thought it important enough to
advertise. Last week I was asked by the editor of a major denomination’s
ministers’ magazine to write an
article on the biblical case against euthanasia. He was concerned that many
ministers in his (well known) Bible-believing denomination were of the view
that euthanasia in hard cases was a genuine act of Christian mercy.

But, whilst these
four factors play a part in accounting for what I would call ethical drift
amongst Christians, I think the real reasons are more deeply theological. I
would attribute them to two destructive heresies – one infecting liberal
evangelical congregations and one infecting conservative evangelical ones. In
both groups are many who actually know their Bibles very well, but who are
increasingly adopting ethical views that are much closer to that of the
prevailing culture than those held historically by the church.

I have recently
reviewed each of these in turn on this blog. I’ll call them
the new liberal heresy and the new
conservative heresy, although, as we will see, neither of them is actually
new. They are a rerun respectively of what Joseph Fletcher called ‘situation
ethics’ and what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called ‘cheap grace’.

Thursday, 14 November 2013

Margo Macdonald MSP (pictured) today
launched
her new
assisted suicide bill in Scotland. The Scottish government has said it does
not support a change in the law and the British Medical Association (BMA) has in
response reiterated its opposition to assisted suicide.

In 2010 MSP Margo
MacDonald's very similar End of Life Assistance Bill was defeated by 85 votes
to 16, in a free vote at the Scottish Parliament.

This should have
settled the debate in Scotland for a generation.

Yet, Ms MacDonald
now proposes her Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill, under which people as young
as 16 would be able to tell their GP about their desire for assisted suicide.

Despite the fact
that 65 per cent of responses to the consultation process were opposed to the
Bill the MSP plans to take her Bill forward, essentially on a system based on
that operating in Oregon, USA.

There, the annual
number of assisted suicides has risen by 450 per cent since legalisation in
1997. One in six of those are depressed, less than one in 20 receive
psychiatric assessments. Some patients have been denied medical care and
offered assisted suicide as a cheaper alternative.

Care Not Killing,
which is spearheading opposition to the proposed Bill, is an alliance of
individuals and more than 40 organisations which brings together disability and
human rights groups, healthcare providers, and faith-based bodies and believes
that assisted suicide is unneccessary, unethical and uncontrollable.

Dr Peter Saunders,
Campaign Director of Care Not Killing said:

“MSPs rejected Ms
MacDonald's last attempt to legalise physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia
in Scotland by an overwhelming majority of 85-16 recognizing that such a move
would seriously endanger public safety. Instead, they sent a ringing endorsement
to making the very best palliative care widely available and accessible.

“The right to die
can so easily become the duty to die and vulnerable people who are sick,
elderly or disabled will inevitably feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to
end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. The stories of incremental
extension presently coming out of Belgium and the Netherlands give a stark
warning about the dangers of going down this road.

“Ms MacDonald’s new
proposals are effectively her old ones dished up again. I expect the Scottish
Parliament to give them short shrift.”

Care Not Killing
committee member John Deighan said: "Compassion must urge us towards
giving proper support and care for the sick and suffering.

“Killing can never
be the right answer in a civilised society. History teaches us the importance
of protecting every human life. We must ensure the frail, disabled and sick are
not put at risk for the sake of a small minority determined to end their
lives."

Dr Gordon Macdonald,
Convenor of Care Not Killing Scotland said:

"Margo
MacDonald's Bill is unnecessary, unethical and dangerous. Experience from
Oregon, Belgium and the Netherlands shows that there can be no safe system for
legalising assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Margo seems to think
that by resurrecting her proposal she will be able to convince people to
support it this time. However, the arguments remain the same and dangers of
practice elsewhere are well known. Margo should move on to another issue and
accept the settled will of Parliament. It is not a priority for the Scottish
people and the Scottish Parliament has made its view clear. Her personal
interest in this matter should not be allowed to dictate to the rest of
Scotland."

“As a practising
palliative care consultant, I am working hard every day to provide the highest
standard of care for my patients. Having seen assisted suicide so rigorously
debated in the public and parliamentary arenas, and so resoundingly rejected by
our parliament on the grounds of public safety, the launch of this new Bill
once again undermines my work, and the confidence which my patients can have in
those who are looking after them at this most fragile and vulnerable stage of
their lives.

“Once again Margo
MacDonald is revealing how little she really knows about the
clinical care of people who are seriously ill. Killing people has always been
wrong, and it remains wrong. We can do much better than that in a properly
caring society.

“The legalisation of
assisted dying/assisted suicide has been debated widely in public and
parliamentary arenas on numerous occasions over several years. It has always
been rejected by parliaments on the grounds of public safety, and this
criterion remains absolutely unchanged.

“The legalisation of
assisted suicide would be dangerous and unnecessary. We have the best
palliative care in the world here in the UK. The law as it stands is safe, and
gives assurance to the public, and particularly to those who are experiencing
the vulnerability of serious illness, that those looking after them will not do
anything to prejudice their lives.”

The Scottish Council
on Human Bioethics (SCHB) is also opposed to the proposal. Formed in 1997, SCHB
is an independent, non-partisan, non-religious council composed of physicians,
lawyers, ethicists and other professionals from disciplines associated with medical
ethics.

The SCHB recognises
that crossing the boundary between acknowledging that death is inevitable and
taking active steps to bring about death, changes fundamentally the role of the
physician, changes the doctor-patient relationship and changes the role of
medicine in society.

Dr Calum MacKellar,
Director of Research of the SCHB said the concept of a “life unworthy of life …
should never be accepted in a civilised society” and added:

“Assisted suicide is
unnecessary since physical suffering can now be adequately alleviated in all
but the rarest cases by appropriate palliative care. And even in the very
exceptional cases where physical suffering does not fully respond to treatment
there is the possibility of using artificial transient or (very occasionally)
total permanent sedation in patients to keep them asleep in order to address
physical and/or mental distress.”

The SCHB emphasises
that vulnerable people need to know that society is committed first and
foremost to their well-being, even if this does involve expenditure of time,
effort and money.

Dr MacKellar added:
“These proposals are asking the people of Scotland to agree that there are
lives that should be ended. That there is such a thing as a ‘life unworthy of
life’ which is a concept that should never be accepted in a civilised society.”

The SCHB is also of
the opinion that the government should encourage society, comprising an ageing
population, to accept that elderly or disabled people may become dependent on
others without losing any of their inherent dignity.

Dr MacKellar
concluded: “The SCHB agrees that the concept of autonomy is extremely important
in medical ethics and law but that there are times when inherent human dignity
must take priority over autonomy for a descent civilised society to exist.”

Care Not Killing emphasises the following points

* Any change in the
law to allow assisted suicide would place pressure on vulnerable people to end
their lives for fear of being a financial, emotional or care burden upon
others. This would especially affect people who are disabled, elderly, sick or
depressed.

* The pressure
people will feel to end their lives if assisted suicide or euthanasia is
legalised will be greatly accentuated at this time of economic recession with
families and health budgets under pressure. Elder abuse and neglect by
families, carers and institutions is real and dangerous and this is why strong
laws are necessary.

* If assisted
suicide or euthanasia is legalised any ‘safeguards’ against abuse, such as
limiting it to certain categories of people, are unlikely to work. Instead,
once any so-called ‘right-to-die’ is established we will see incremental
extension with pressure being applied to expand the categories of people who
qualify for it.

* The vast majority
of UK doctors are opposed to legalising euthanasia along with the British
Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of
General Practitioners, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British
Geriatric Society.

* Major
disability rights groups in Britain (including SCOPE, UKDPC and Not Dead Yet
UK) oppose any change in the law believing it will lead to increased prejudice
towards them and increased pressure on them to end their lives.

Contact the author

Search this Blog

Kiwi, Christian and Medical

This blog deals mainly with matters at the interface of Christianity and Medicine. But I do also diverge into other subjects - especially New Zealand, rugby, economics, developing world, politics and topics of general Christian and/or medical interest. The opinions expressed here are mine and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or anyone else associated with me.

About Me

I am CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. The opinions expressed here however are mine, and may not necessarily reflect the views of CMF or anyone else associated with me.